When Institutions Work: Why Nicolas Sarkozy's Conviction Is Remarkable

On September 25, former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was found guilty of criminal conspiracy to seek illicit funding from the Libyan government for his 2007 presidential election campaign, which he had won. The court sentenced him to a five-year jail sentence, to be executed despite the possibility of appeal.

Prosecutors had accused then candidate Sarkozy to be the central figure of a ‘faustian corruption pact’ with members of the Muammar Qaddafi regime to funnel money for his presidential bid, in exchange of future favours for the Libyan dictator and his relatives, including his brother-in-law Abdullah Senoussi, accused of having organised the bombing of a French airliner in 1989, in which 171 people died.

President Sarkozy was acquitted from three other charges of corruption, concealment of embezzlement of public funds and illegal campaign financing, for lack of evidence. The investigation had failed to trace the money. The judge however ruled that the intent to commit those crimes was established and warranted on its own a harsh punishment.

Seven other defendants were also found guilty, including former chief of staff and éminence grise of the Sarkozy presidency, Claude Guéant, and former home minister and close ally Brice Hortefeux. Both were sentenced to six and two years of jail, respectively.

This is not the first time that a French high-level politician is convicted of wrongdoing in France. Former President Jacques Chirac was convicted in 2011 of embezzlement and breach of trust. Former Prime Minister Francois Fillon was convicted in 2020 of embezzlement of public funds, misuse of company assets and abuse of power. Ex-ministers, including former International Monetary Fund managing director and current president of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, have been found guilty by courts of fraud, corruption or abuse of public funds (Lagarde was found guilty of negligence, in a controversial payout case). Sarkozy himself had been convicted earlier, in 2021 and 2023, in multiple cases of corruption and influence peddling, for which he was sentenced to three years in prison (three years suspended, to be served at home with an electronic bracelet). He had also been found guilty of attempting to bribe a judge and for exceeding campaign spending limits.

But this is the first time that a former Head of State in France will serve jail time (Chirac’s prison sentence was suspended), which makes this case a landmark in France’s political history. Even Maréchal Pétain’s conviction at the end of the second World War had been converted to house arrest. Sarkozy claims his innocence and has immediately announced that he would appeal the decision.

It is extremely rare for former heads of state to find themselves behind bars, especially in functioning democracies. Current Brazil President Lula was jailed in a corruption case, later overturned. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was also convicted and sent to jail on bribery charges in 2014. Three former South Korean presidents found their way to a cell on bribery, corruption and treason charges. Former President Chun Doo-Hwan (1980-1988) was even given the death penalty, for treason, before having his sentence commuted to life and then pardoned.

Some were given jail sentences that were commuted based on age or technicality, like former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, convicted for tax frauds and sex scandals, or former French President Chirac, whose jail sentence was suspended. Jacob Zuma, former president of South Africa, was briefly jailed but then released on medical grounds. Some also have fled their country to avoid jail altogether, like Yingluck Shinawatra of Thailand, in 2017, or Jean-Claude Duvallier (“Baby Doc”), president-for-life of Haiti who fled to France and lived in exile.

This makes the condemnation of Sarkozy all the more exceptional, considering too that he and his former aides were convicted on intent rather than on criminal deeds (due to lack of evidence).

This event takes place at a delicate time in French politics. Governance is at a standstill; President Macron just lost his sixth prime minister. Last March, far-right leader and main presidential contender Marine Le Pen was convicted in a fraud case to four years of jail (two years suspended and two years in house arrest with electronic bracelet). She is contesting her sentence and her ineligibility in an appeal to be pronounced in May 2026.

Through these cases, judges in France have asserted their independence and their willingness to go after top politicians. In a sense, France’s judiciary goes against the flow of time, when politics across the world is characterised by the flouting of democratic norms of conduct, including probity, impartiality and a minimal commitment to truthfulness and transparency. In the United States, President Donald Trump has contributed to redefine legal doctrine to obtain legal immunity for himself, while displaying utter disregard for democratic and constitutional norms.

Across continents, democracy is dying due to the erosion of trust in mainstream political formations, leaders and institutions. Lack or absence of accountability are drivers to the delegitimisation of political actors and institutions, paving the way for the rise of the far-right.

In a recently published essay (L’Heure des Prédateurs), Swiss Italian author and former political sherpa Giuliano da Empoli describes the rise of brutal, unapologetic forms of power that break with the traditional norms of democratic governance. Favouring impulsive action against carefully crafted decisions, turning their illiberalism into a brand sold on reels and social media posts, they turn politics into a restless spectacle that produces a chaos that they can exploit as lever for domination.

Da Empoli criticises the passivity or impotence of defenders of democratic norms and values – the media, institutions, constitutional states – who have been unable or unwilling to regulate the techno-sphere, curb abuses or preserve democratic norms in the face of attacks by the powerful.

It is in that sense that the French court’s decision to convict a former president is remarkable. It is a rare instance of assertion of the rule of law and of the principle of equality before the law. In their verdict, the judge justified their decision by stating that intent to pave the way for corruption at the highest possible level, by the very individual responsible for ensuring compliance with the constitution, and guaranteeing national independence, is an exceptionally serious matter, ‘likely to undermine citizens’ confidence not only in those who represent them and are supposed to act in the public interest, but also in the very institutions of the Republic’.

In such polarised times, this necessary decision is also likely to fuel illiberal critiques of judicial institutions. Partisans of the former president and conservative commentators and newsmakers have accused the judge of overreach, of fomenting a ‘judicial coup d’état’, and have called for greater political control over the appointment of judges in France. Sarkozy, in a reiteration of Louis the XIV apocryphal statement ‘L’Etat, c’est moi (I am the State)', declared that his condemnation was an indictment of the Republic itself. Beyond critique, the decision has also generated violence, as the judge who pronounced the verdict has been subjected to death threats.

Be it as it may, it is encouraging to see institutions standing for the principles on which they are built, at a time where beholders of constitutional authority tend to cave in front of reactionary populists.

Gilles Verniers is Researcher at CERI, Sciences Po, Paris. Views are personal.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.